This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Individuals can be legally forced to pay their debts with their cryptocurrency, but the creditor must have a judgment which states that the debtor is obligated to pay off the debt, including any cryptocurrency they own. Knowing whether or not the debtor owns crypto like bitcoin is of course a challenge.
Generally, if debtors owe a debt to a lender, and the lender cancels or forgives that debt for less than its full amount, the debtor is treated for income tax purposes as having income and may have to pay tax on this income by virtue of a 1099-C filing from the lender. 1099-C Issuance. 684, 689 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2009)
As such, whether the consumer lawyer intends to pursue the class or not, this is seen as a tactic to increase settlement value for the debtor, even if the settlement is only on an individual basis. These lawsuits are typically based upon an allegedly improper 3-day notice sent to a tenant/debtor. 18), Florida Statutes.
In the event of any inconsistency between any provision of this part and any provision of the federal act, the provision which is more protective of the consumer or debtor shall prevail.” Had actual knowledge that the right did not exist. This part is in addition to the requirements and regulations of the federal act. 559.552, Fla.
—In collecting consumer debts, no person shall: (9) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legalright when such person knows that the right does not exist. In order to establish a violation of Section 559.72(9)
The order stated that “a creditor may have the right to enforce a valid lien such as a mortgage or security interest. Also, a debtor may voluntarily pay any debt that has been discharged.” As such, the mortgage on the surrendered property was discharged. Post-discharge, Nationstar, instead of foreclosing, sent Ms.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content